Canada’s Bill C-76 (Vouch Voting, No I.D. Necessary)

(Voting is critical to a democracy, but there must be safeguards)


The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE


Bill C-76 is now getting its third reading in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

For some additional reading and context, this article covers citizenship and criminality for voting, while this article covers voter ID laws. They cover Canada/US/UK/Australia/New Zealand.

Cased in this omnibus bill, C-76 (which Liberals claim they hated while in opposition), is this, which waters down the requirements to vote legally in a Canadian election. From the summary:

The enactment also amends the Act to modernize voting services, facilitate enforcement and improve various aspects of the administration of elections and of political financing. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment….
.
(d) authorizes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals for the purpose of updating the Register of Electors;
.
(e) removes the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;
.
(f) replaces, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;
.
(g) removes the requirement for electors’ signatures during advance polls, changes procedures for the closing of advance polls and allows for counting ballots from advance polls one hour before the regular polls close;
.
(h) replaces the right or obligation to take an oath with a right or obligation to make a solemn declaration, and streamlines the various declarations that electors may have the right or obligation to make under specific circumstances;

Yes, this is what is seems. (e) allows for Voter ID cards to be used as actual ID; (f) without ID, you can just sign an attestation or have somebody vouch for you; (g) means no signatures necessary in advance polling; (h) No oath needed after all?!

Rebutting those claims:
Leftist and social justice types claim that having strict voter ID laws is discrimination, as it makes it harder for poor people, and disadvantaged groups to get their voices heard. These disadvantaged people don’t often have proper ID or paperwork. They also claim that there is no evidence of “voter fraud”, despite what more right leaning people claim. However, these assertions are easily debunked.

(1) How is it discrimination to ensure that everyone voting has photo identification. There is no discrimination for the simple reason that everyone gets treated the same.

(2) Everyone who is a citizen of Canada or a legal resident has some sort of paper trail. They have a birth certificate (if born in Canada), or a citizenship card (if immigrated legally). However, if someone in the country illegally was trying to vote, then they wouldn’t have “documentation”.

(3) Everyone legally in the country is able to get photo ID, and to imply they are unable to is condescending. This seems like a ruse to make it easier for non-citizens to vote.

(4) There is the rebuttal that there are no documented cases of voter fraud. However, if the person is “undocumented”, then there would be no documentation of fraud. Bizarrely, lefties are actually correct about this.

(5) If, as they claim, large groups are unable to get valid photo identification for years on end, should they really be making decisions on the future of the country?

Now, for some of the revisions in the bill:


ORIGINAL

Alternative proof of residence

143(3) An elector who proves his or her identity by providing two pieces of identification of a type authorized under subsection (2.1) that establish the elector’s name may instead prove his or her residence by taking an oath in writing in the prescribed form — the form including the statement that he or she has received the oral advice set out in subsection 143.1(1) — if he or she is accompanied by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling division who

(a) proves their own identity and residence to the deputy returning officer and poll clerk by providing the piece or pieces of identification referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (b), respectively; and

(b) attests to the elector’s residence on oath in writing in the prescribed form, the form including the statements that

(i) they have received the oral advice set out in subsection 143.1(2),
(ii) they know the elector personally,
(iii) they know that the elector resides in the polling division,
(iv) they have not attested to the residence of another elector at the election, and
(v) their own residence has not been attested to by another elector at the election.

REPLACEMENT

Subsection 143(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Solemn declaration
.
(3) An elector may instead prove his or her identity and residence by making the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.‍1(1) in writing if he or she is accompanied by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling station and who
.
(a) provides the election officer referred to in subsection (1) with the piece or pieces of identification referred to in paragraph (2)‍(a) or (b), respectively; and
(b) vouches for the elector by making the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.‍1(2) in writing.


ORIGINAL

Name and address corresponding closely to another
146 If a name and address in the list of electors correspond so closely with the name and address of a person who demands a ballot as to suggest that it is intended to refer to that person, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes the prescribed oath.

Person in whose name another has voted
147 If a person asks for a ballot at a polling station after someone else has voted under that person’s name, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes an oath in writing in the prescribed form. The form is to state the penalty that may be imposed under this Act on a person who is found guilty of requesting a second ballot at an election contrary to section 7 or of applying for a ballot in a name that is not his or her own contrary to paragraph 167(1)(a).

Name crossed off list in error
148 If an elector claims that his or her name has been crossed off in error from an official list of electors under subsection 176(2) or (3), the elector shall not be allowed to vote unless the returning officer verifies that the elector’s name was crossed off in error or the elector takes the oath referred to in section 147 in writing.

Failure to prove identity or residence
148.1 (1) An elector who fails to prove his or her identity and residence in accordance with section 143 or to take an oath otherwise required by this Act shall not receive a ballot or be allowed to vote

REPLACEMENT

Sections 146 to 148.‍1 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Name and address corresponding closely to another
.
146 If the name and address of a person who asks for a ballot do not appear in the list of electors but a different name and address in that list correspond so closely as to suggest that they are intended to refer to that person, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she makes a solemn declaration in the prescribed form.
.
Person in whose name another has voted
.
147 (1) If a person asks for a ballot at a polling station after someone else has voted under that person’s name, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she makes the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.‍1(1) in writing.
.
Requirement before making solemn declaration
.
(2) An election officer shall, before the person makes the solemn declaration, advise the person in writing of the penalty that may be imposed under this Act on a person who is found guilty of voting or attempting to vote more than once contrary to section 281.‍5 or of requesting or applying for a ballot or special ballot in a name that is not his or her own contrary to paragraph 281.‍7(1)‍(a).
.
Name crossed off list in error
.
148 If an elector claims that his or her name has been crossed off in error from an official list of electors under subsection 176(2) or (3), the elector shall not be allowed to vote unless the returning officer verifies that the elector’s name was crossed off in error or the elector makes the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.‍1(1) in writing.
.
Failure to prove identity or residence
.
148.‍1 (1) An elector who fails to prove his or her identity and residence in accordance with section 143 or to make a solemn declaration otherwise required by this Act shall not receive a ballot or be allowed to vote.
.
When elector refuses to make solemn declaration
.
(2) If an elector refuses to make a solemn declaration on the ground that he or she is not required to do so under this Act, the elector may appeal to the returning officer. If, after consultation with the election officer in whose opinion the elector is required to make the solemn declaration, the returning officer decides that the elector is not required to make it, and if the elector is entitled to vote in the polling division, the returning officer shall direct that he or she be allowed to do so.


The bill goes on and on. Rather than go through the entire document, here is the takeaway:

The federal government, under the guise of “inclusivity” is watering down the requirements to vote. Demanding photo ID is a necessary step to ensure: (1) that the people voting are who they say they are; (2) that they have the right to vote in an election; (3) that they are not voting multiple times.

This requirement is not excessive, or an unreasonable thing to ask. However, it is an essential step in ensuring the fairness and accuracy of our elections.

Lawsuit Against Harvard for Racial Quotas Continues

(Harvard University, one of the most well known U.S. schools)


The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE


A lawsuit continues today against Harvard University filed by several Asian students. They allege that Harvard has “racial quotas” to fill, and that Asian students, despite on average having higher academic accomplishment, are not getting offers of admission at the rates they should.

The suit alleges that only about 20% of offers of admission — in continuous years — go to Asian students, even though their population is applying in even higher proportional rates, and that they are on average more accomplished.

Let’s make an important distinction of equality.
(1) Equality of opportunity: Everyone is treated the same. Everyone has the same chances to rise or fall based on their own actions. This creates a merit based society, as is explained here.
(2) Equality of outcome: Different rules are used to ensure certain results are obtained. If 50% of the general population are women, then 50% of the group will be women. If 35%, 25%, and 10% percent of the population are races A, B, C, then the racial makeup of the group will be 35%, 25%, and 10%. This completely undermines a meritocracy, as double standards will almost always have to be used.

The Washington Post linked a transcript in one of its articles. It is worth a read. Although that is appreciated, there were a few commenters in the article that merit listing.

There was Sarah F. Cole, and African American who graduated in 2016, who said: “Race-blind admissions is an act of erasure. To not see my race is to not see me.”

and this one ….

“Tang Diep, a Vietnamese immigrant who is currently a senior, said: “I personally, really believe that I benefited from affirmative action. Like in allowing the admissions process to take into account my race and ethnicity, it allows my immigration history to be taken into account. It allows my own experiences of overcoming the — my racial identity when I was younger and understanding that to really be portrayed….

That is right. These people are actually defending race-based discrimination. Rather, they seem to completely miss the point, while this man didn’t. Disregarding a person’s race for college admissions or job offers is not “erasing” them. Rather, it is treating them equally and fairly.

The EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The U.S. Supreme Court has already made some rulings on the issue of affirmative action. For example:

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) ruled that affirmative action was legal, but that setting aside a certain number of spots for a specific group was illegal. Actually, this seems to be what Harvard was (allegedy) doing.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) ruled that the University of Michigan Law School could have affirmative action in order to bolster underrepresented groups, but like with Bakke, specific quotas could not be set.

The Supreme Court has ruled that affirmative action was okay within the parameters of merit, in essence. So equality of outcome is okay, as long as it is done within equality of opportunity. Oh, the mental gymnastics of the Supreme Court Justices.

Race and IQ has long been a contentious topic for debate. So has the topic of race and academic accomplishment. Here is one such finding. And a quick online search will find many studies done which contrast IQ and race.

One development worth watching is the U.S. President Donald Trump is encouraging colleges to stop the practice of affirmative action, and to steer more towards a racially-blind admissions process.

Of course, there is a Canadian perspective of the issue to be shown here. (This is CanuckLaw after all). Affirmative Action is directly mentioned in Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

>Equality Rights
Marginal note:
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Marginal note:
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In fact, there is an inherent contradiction within the Canadian Charter itself. 15(1) promotes equality of opportunity, while 15(2) promotes equality of outcome.

Canadian National Railway Co.v. Canada (Human Rights Comm.) and Action travail des femmes (1987), 8 C.H.R.R. D/4210 (S.C.C.) was one such case in Canada, where the Canadian National Railway was ordered to have 1 of every 4 new hires to be women. The Supreme Court of Canada noted that 0.7% were female, and enforced the original Human Rights Tribunal order.

The fact that women were, on average, much less inclined to seek heavy manual labour was irrelevant. The vast discrepancy “had” to be because of systemic bias.

In summary, affirmative action (whether it is racial, gender, or otherwise) should not be a part of society. In a “merit-based” society, people succeed on their positive merits: education, experience, attitude, work ethic, qualifications, etc…. Further, people should fail based on negative traits: lack of experience, lack of education, poor attitude, etc….

As was outlined earlier in the article, there is a huge difference between (1) Equality of Opportunity; and of (2) Equality of Outcome. The former promotes the idea that hard work drives success, while the latter argues all of that should be negated in favour of a “politically correct” group that reflects the general population. These 2 ideas cannot co-exist, as they are contrary to each other.

It will be interesting to see how the U.S. case plays out. The U.S. Supreme Court has (for now) been willing to allow affirmative action to take place in higher education, provided no specific quotas were used. This appears to violate that exception, but we will have to see.

Final thought: A workforce or a college class should comprise a group that works hard. It should not look like a random sample of society …. just because it’s 2015, or some such nonsense.

ECHR Upholds Islamic Blasphemy Law in Austria

(From the European Court of Human Rights press release)

An Austrian woman had her appeal rejected and will have to pay 480 Euros for truthful comments she made at 2 seminars calling Muhammad a paedophile for marrying a 6 year old girl.

An interesting side note, as exampled in the video, Islam is not a race, and hence criticism of it is not “racism”. That claim is often used to derail legitimate debate.

For some context, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a European-based court in France where people can contest judgements if they claim human rights have been violated. This court will consider cases after other legal remedies have been exhausted in the home country.

Conviction for calling Muhammad a paedophile is not in breach of Article 10
In today’s Chamber judgment1
.
in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies.
.
The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.

That was the summary of the case, The press release goes on to list the facts:

Principal facts
.
The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.
.
On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings.

The facts were not really in question, just the findings

Decision of the Court
Article 10
.
The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
.
The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.
.
……….
.
The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings
protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.
.
3
The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the
Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.

The ECHR press release pretty much sums it up in 2 statements

(1) Criticising Islam can lead to religious unrest

(2) Protecting religious feelings (of Muslims) trumps free speech

Actually, the ruling and press release could be taken as a good sign that some religions simply do not belong in a Western country. If mere criticism can result in ”religious violence” then it is obviously incompatible.

The ECHR excused the practice, saying that it should be considered that child marriages were historically a reality. But switch that around. That historical reality would be considered paedophilia under today’s laws. So the statement is factually correct.

But before sounding too smug, the Liberal Party of Canada passed a non-binding motion (M-103) which


a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could

(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,

(ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Notice that Islam is the only religion mentioned in the motion. It should also be noted that the Liberals rejected an alternative motion that would passed the same intent, but with no mention to any specific religion.

No other religious group in the western world acts this way, or has to have certain laws passed to appease it.

Religion and Government should remain 2 separate entities. However, that becomes next to impossible when importing a culture that believes religious law should govern civil law. Another example of multiculturalism not working at all. This nonsense needs to stop.

Destroying National Borders — The U.N. Global Compact for Migration

This agreement, though it sounds harmless enough, should send chills down the spine of anyone who values having a nation, and a national identity.

For some perspective, the European Union, (E.U.) decided to impose migrant quotas on memberstates, with or without their consent. Last September, the European Court of Justice rejected challenges brought by Hungary and Slovakia. Poland and now Hungarynow face the loss of voting rights. The E.U. will punish member states who dare to act in accordance with their constituents’ wishes

Victor Oraban of Hungary has become a de facto leader of defending nation’s rights in Europe. See here, see here, and see here.

For those of you interested in the topic of nationalism, Steve Turley is a YouTuber and conservative author I frequently watch, and here is a review of one of his latest books. Check him out.

As for the UN Global Compact on Migration, it would in essence be the global version of what the E.U. is already doing to Europe. Member states are having their arms twisted and threatened with loss of voting rights and other sanctions for not complying.

This is in fact referring to hundreds of millions.

Today, there are over 258 million migrants around the world living outside their country of birth. This figure is expected to grow for a number of reasons including population growth, increasing connectivity, trade, rising inequality, demographic imbalances and climate change. Migration provides immense opportunity and benefits – for the migrants, host communities and communities of origin. However, when poorly regulated it can create significant challenges. These challenges include overwhelming social infrastructures with the unexpected arrival of large numbers of people and the deaths of migrants undertaking dangerous journeys.

The full text of the agreement is about 34 pages. It lists 16 ”preambles”, and a further 23 ”objectives”. Here are a few:

4. Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times. However, migrants and refugees are distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks. Only refugees are entitled to the specific international protection as defined by international refugee law. This Global Compact refers to migrants and presents a cooperative framework addressing migration in all its dimensions.

On the surface this sounds harmless enough. But remember, Trudeau (with Conservative support) is for letting people stay in the country, even if they sneak in under false pretenses. Remember, you get a hearing as long as you ”claim” to be a refugee.

7. This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on thencommitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and
Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.

At least on paper, this is an improvement over the E.U. migrant quota scheme (which punishes dissent). However, we will see how ”voluntary” it really is.

Shared Responsibilities
11. This Global Compact offers a 360-degree vision of international migration and recognizes that
a comprehensive approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration, while addressing risks and challenges for individuals and communities in countries of origin, transit and destination. No country can address the challenges and opportunities of this global phenomenon on its own. With this comprehensive approach, we aim to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, while reducing the incidence and negative impact of irregular migration through international cooperation and a combination of measures put forward in this GlobalCompact.

The UN document is using the same dishonest language of ”irregular migrants”. They are illegal immigrants, and border hoppers. I also don’t like when it says that no country can address the problem on its own.

National sovereignty: The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in accordance with international law.

Again, referring to ”illegal aliens” as ”irregular migrants”. This manipulation of language is infuriating. Reiterating that this is voluntary, but it will be interesting to see how much pressure is applied later.

OBJECTIVE 1: Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence based policies
.
17. We commit to strengthen the global evidence base on international migration by improving and investing in the collection, analysis and dissemination of accurate, reliable, comparable data, disaggregated by sex, age, migration status and other characteristics relevant in national contexts, while upholding the right to privacy under international human rights law and protecting personal data.

This sounds creepy and Orwellian. Will nations be forced to give up personal data to international agencies? See the last article here.

OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate
documentation
.
20. We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.

The wording of this is troubling. How exactly will the UN help people gain identification? Will they take them at their word? Also, does this document refer to migration as a human right?

OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
.
27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implementborder management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

Arguably the worst of them all. ”Manage borders in an integrated manner”? This would destroy national sovereignty.

Okay, here is the full list of the 23 objectives:


Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
(12) Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
(13) Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14) Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
(15) Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16) Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17) Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to
shape perceptions of migration
(18) Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and
competences
(19) Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
(20) Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
(21) Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
(22) Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
(23) Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration

This global compact will undermine if not destroy what it means to be a nation.

If Canada (or any other nation) has to coordinate or integrate its border policies with the United Nations, then we don’t have borders.

Further, while under the pretense of ”helping refugees” the UN seems to want to have a say in how national migration policies IN GENERAL are handled.

Side Note: See here for a piece on ID requirements to vote in some Common Law countries. It is true.

Overall, the UN Global Compact for Migration is a frightening agreement. Anyone who values the sovereignty and independence of their country should be aware of, and opposed to this.

Statistics Canada Wants Banks to Hand Over Customer Data

(An Orwellian scheme is being devised here)

If true, this story is disturbing. Statistics Canada wants to collect the banking data from 500,000 Canadians each year.

Statistics Canada claims it wants: “to start collecting, on a limited basis, financial transactions data from banks, as well as other organizations that may process financial transactions data.

Section 13 of the Statistics Act reads as follows:

Access to records
.
13 A person having the custody or charge of any documents or records that are maintained in any department or in any municipal office, corporation, business or organization, from which information sought in respect of the objects of this Act can be obtained or that would aid in the completion or correction of that information, shall grant access thereto for those purposes to a person authorized by the Chief Statistician to obtain that information or aid in the completion or correction of that information.
R.S., 1985, c. S-19, s. 13;

So, “anyone” with “any” records of “any” sort MUST disclose them if Statistics Canada believes the information can be used for statistical purposes. That is what the law says.

Furthermore, the Canadian Privacy Act is really no help here. It claims data collection is okay, as long as it relates to its purpose.

Collection, Retention and Disposal of Personal Information
Marginal note:
.
Collection of personal information
.
4 No personal information shall be collected by a government institution unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution.

While this seems — at least on paper — to be legal, one could easily argue that neither the Statistics Act nor the Privacy Act were ever designed for this

The transaction data would include:
(a) Description of the transaction
(b) Date and Time
(c) Location
(d) Value of the transactions

The transactions would be linked to a customer by way of:
(I) Name
(II) Social Insurance Number
(III) Date of Birth
(IV) Gender
(V) Address

Spokesman James Tabreke claims that obtaining all the personal identifiers is necessary in order to “gain a snapshot” of certain types of customers. He says that StatsCan is not interested in anyone in particular, but just using the information to observe trends.

Even if this were true, the idea of banks handing over such information “without the customers’ knowledge or consent” is quite chilling indeed.

The math provided by the Global article is confusing.

First, supposedly, 500,000 people’s data is to be taken. It states the odds of being chosen are 1 in 20. That would only be true if there were 10 million people in Canada. There are 36-37 million at this point. Teenagers and adolescents frequently have bank accounts too. So, where does the 1 in 20 chance come from?

Second, if this were being done for statistical purposes, why would 500,000 people need to be selected? Political polling, for example, uses samples between 500 and 2000. A sample of perhaps 10,000 would obtain results accurate to within 1% error.

Third, an omission here: if there were to be 500,000 Canadians each year, would StatsCan be using the data of the same people, and contrasting their behavioural changes, or would it be 500,000 more Canadians?

For media inquiries of the Canadian Banker’s Association:
Aaron Boles
Tel: (416) 362-6093 ext. 350
Cell: (647) 274-8495
Email:aboles@cba.ca

For media inquiries from Statistics Canada:
Media Relations — Media Hotline
613-951-INFO (951-4636)
8:30am to 5:00pm Eastern Time, Monday to Friday, excluding holidays.
E-mail: statcan.mediahotline-ligneinfomedias.statcan@canada.ca

At the time of writing, messages have been left with both institutions.

Tabreke claims that this method of forcing banks to hand over personal data will improve on, and eventually replace the surveys that have traditionally been mailed out. While the honesty is refreshing, it is downright creepy how calm and straightforward he is.

Of course, it leaves out the obvious question — why not get the stores to report their consumer trends? Not customer information, but sales trends. Why go for this invasive tactic?

Yes, that is indeed what he says. Forget voluntary disclosure. We will rummage through your financial life and take the information for ourselves. This is wrong on many levels.

Going cash only or using crypto-currency seem like appealing options at this point.


Followup to the Story

Aaron Boles did return the call quite shortly after this article was published. He stated that the C.B.A. has and will continue to refuse the demand. Although the C.B.A. and banks ”do” comply with most requests from Statistics Canada, this was just too far. Boles stated quite bluntly that banks need to have the trust of their customers, and this would erode it.

The C.B.A. claims that no data sharing proposed here has so far actually taken place. Here is the statement they released to Global Media:

Statement from the Canadian Bankers Association

Protecting the information privacy of their valued customers is a top priority for banks in Canada. Banks believed this proposed data acquisition project was still in the exploratory stages and were not aware that Statistics Canada was moving to compel disclosure of this information. No customer transaction data or other personal information has been transferred to Statistics Canada under this request. The CBA is working with members to understand the nature of this request and next steps.

Further Followup (October 29)
The Liberal government has announced in Parliament that it is okay with the push by Statistics Canada, and claims it is necessary in order to advance government policy. See this video.

South Korea, Japan Ban Citizens From Toking in Canada, U.S. Bans Pot Investors

(South Korean and Japanese citizens will not be allowed to smoke marijuana in Canada, even though it is legal here)

Marijuana, or weed, was legalized in Canada, as of October 17, 2018. Far from the most controversial legislation is has passed since getting elected in 2015. While the substance will for now still be regulated, for all practical purposes it is completely legal. A number of developments from this are happening.

First, is that the Canadian government intends to make it easier to apply for a pardon for those with a pot conviction. This similar to prior moves years ago which pardoned gays and lesbians for consensual sexual acts.

Second, it remains to be seen how the economy will be effected by this legislation. There has been widespread speculation that it will boost economic growth. The details are outside the scope of this article, though more information is coming available.

Third, the United States says it intends to ban those who smoke cannabis, or even those who invest in the product, such as stock or bond holders. While the U.S. does have the right to refuse entry to anyone it wishes, this does raise 2 interesting questions: (a) how would Border Control even find out; (b) does it infringe on citizens doing lawful activity abroad? In later versions of the story, the U.S. is said to be backing off on that proposal — at least for now.

Fourth, and probably the most interesting here is that South Korea has formally declared that any of its citizens who smoke weed may be arrested. This applies even in Canada, where the act itself is legal. South Korean citizens are subjected to its laws regardless of where they are in the world. Japan has done the same, warning citizens that they may be subjected to home laws even while abroad.

As an aside, it would be interesting to know how the officials would ever learn about it. However, people today do brag about just about everything online. Also, given the distance, bringing witnesses for a criminal trial may prove difficult.

Furthermore, could a Korean or Japanese national smoke weed, and then claim asylum here, on grounds that they are being persecuted? This sounds absurd, but not outside the realm of possibility.

The Japanese and South Korea model stand in stark contrast to Canadian, American, and other Western nations, who oblige their citizens to follow the laws of wherever they happen to be at that time.

Fifth, and also worth noting, Russia has condemned the move as hypocritical. The Russian government says that legalization flies in the face of several anti-narcotic treaties, and does and end run around those agreements. Canada was a party to the following:

CLICK HERE, for the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

CLICK HERE, for the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

CLICK HERE, for the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

CLICK HERE, for the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

Russia has a valid point. The legalization push by the Trudeau government “will” undoubtedly make anti-drug matters more complicated. After all, how committed can Canada be to fighting the marijuana trade considering the substance is legal here?

The October 17 legalization will bring a number of challenges both here and abroad. Too early to say where things will go, but there will almost certainly be a followup article on at least one of these points.

%d bloggers like this: